Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3485 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Daria Goltsova and International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), award of 12 August 2014 Panel: His Hon. James Robert Reid QC (United Kingdom), President; Prof. Martin Schimke (Germany); Mr Alexander McLin (Switzerland) Weightlifting Doping (cocaine) Applicable law WADA time limit to appeal Scope of CAS review Degree of fault or negligence Commencement of the period of ineligibility in case of substantial delays 1. In anti-doping cases where at the time of an anti-doping rule violation a different version of the applicable anti-doping rules is in force than at the time an appeal to CAS is lodged against a first instance decision rendered with respect to the anti-doping rule violation, the substantive elements of the appeal are governed by the rules in force at the time of the alleged violation – subject to any application of the principle of lex mitior. However the procedural aspects of the appeal are governed by the rules in force at the time of the appeal. 2. Under the IWF anti-doping policy, the deadline for an appeal by WADA is determined – amongst others – by WADA’s receipt of the complete file relating to the decision. In cases of appeals by WADA where the length of time elapsed between the decision appealed and the date of the appeal is considerable, consideration should be given as to whether there was any evidence from which it could be inferred that there was a good faith obligation on WADA to have inquired as to the existence or progress of any disciplinary proceedings against the athlete so as to impose a duty on WADA to commence any appeal to the CAS earlier than it did in the given case. 3. Even if an athlete does not appeal against a first instance decision by which he or she has been found to have had no significant fault/negligence for an anti-doping rule violation, upon appeal by another party (e.g. by WADA) the CAS Panel in charge must start with the question whether the athlete has established that there was no fault or negligence on his or her part. This is because CAS has full power to review the facts and the law (i.e. to treat the matter de novo and not merely as a review of the first instance decision, though it will pay proper regard and respect to the first instance decision). 4. Over the years, athletes have had their obligation to ensure that they do not ingest any prohibited substance drummed into them. An athlete cannot now be regarded as being absolved from all responsibility when choosing to make up a drink from a sachet CAS 2014/A/3485 2 WADA v. Daria Goltsova & IWF, award of 12 August 2014 containing an unknown herbal substance, particularly one with the word “Coca” in its name, even when that substance is made freely available to all the guests in a hotel dining room. 5. Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the athlete, for example an delay in the commencement of the appeal proceedings brought about by the failure of the International Federation or Anti-Doping Organization to comply with its obligation to notify WADA of the result of the hearing before the first instance hearing body, the International Federation or Anti-Doping Organization imposing the sanction may start the period of ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. I. PARTIES 1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) is the independent world anti-doping agency which has the aim of promoting, co-ordinating and monitoring, on an international level, the fight against doping in sports in all its forms. It has a principle place of business in Montreal, Canada. 2. The International Weightlifting Federation (the “IWF”) is the international body governing the sport of weightlifting with its registered seat in Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Ms Daria Goltsova (the “Athlete”) is a weightlifter affiliated to the Russian Weightlifting Federation which is the national federation governing the sport of weightlifting in Russia and is affiliated to IWF. II. THE BACKGROUND FACTS 4. On an in-competition test performed on a urine sample provided by the Athlete on 13 May 2011 on the occasion of the Youth World Championships in Lima, Peru (the “Competition”), the Athlete tested positive for a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is, and at all material times has been, a Non-Specified Stimulant, as classified under “S6 (a) (Non-Specified Stimulants)” on the 2011 WADA Prohibited List. 5. She did not contest the presence of the substance in her bodily sample. The explanation which she gave for its presence (which is accepted by WADA as being correct) is that the cocaine entered her body as a result of her consumption of a “Delisse” brand tea named “Mate de Coca” during her stay at the St. Augustine Hotel, Lima during the competition. 6. By decision of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel (“DHP”) dated 20 November 2011, following a hearing on 7 November 2011, the DHP held that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping CAS 2014/A/3485 3 WADA v. Daria Goltsova & IWF, award of 12 August 2014 rule violation and sanctioned her with a period of ineligibility of 6 months commencing on 4 July 2011, the date on which she was provisionally suspended. 7. Despite the terms of art 8.1.6 of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy (the “ADP”) in force at the time of the violation which provided: “The IWF shall keep WADA fully apprised as to the status of pending cases and the result of all hearings”, WADA was first informed of the decision on 17 December 2013 as an attachment to an email from the IWF. 8. WADA requested the case file from the IWF by a letter dated 26 December 2013. It received documents relating to the decision under cover of an email from IWF dated 20 January 2014. 9. On 7 February 2014, WADA filed its statement of appeal (designated as its appeal brief) with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) in accordance with Article R47 et seq. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “Code”) against the decision of the DHP seeking in particular an increase in the sanction imposed on the Athlete. In its statement of appeal, WADA nominated Dr. Martin Schimke as an arbitrator. 10. On 13 February 2014, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of WADA’s statement of appeal/appeal brief and invited the Respondents to jointly nominate an arbitrator within ten (10) days of receipt of the letter in accordance with Article R53 of the Code and to file an answer within twenty (20) days of receipt of the letter in accordance with Article R55 of the Code. 11. On 21 February 2014, the IWF informed the CAS Court Office that it neither intended to nominate an arbitrator nor to submit a statement of appeal, but that it would abide by the award to be rendered. The Athlete did not respond to the statement of appeal. 12. On 21 March 2014, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division would appoint an arbitrator in lieu of the Respondents in accordance with Article R53 of the Code. In the same letter, the CAS Court Office confirmed that this appeal would be handled in English. 13. On 29 April 2014, the CAS Court Office confirmed with the Parties that the Panel appointed to decide this appeal was as follows: President: His Honour James Robert Reid QC, West Liss, Hampshire Arbitrators: Prof. Dr. Martin Schimke, attorney-at-law in Dusseldorf, Germany Mr. Alexander McLin, attorney-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland 14. On 20 May 2014, the CAS Court Office requested that the Russian Weightlifting Federation confirmed that all such documents in this procedure which were sent to the federation on behalf of the Athlete, were indeed forwarded to the Athlete as requested. 15. The CAS Court Office received no such response to its request from the Russian Weightlifting Federation. In the absence of such a response, the Panel considered that the proper course is to rely on the maxim “omnia rite” and proceed with the arbitration. If it subsequently emerges CAS 2014/A/3485 4 WADA v. Daria Goltsova & IWF, award of 12 August 2014 that the Athlete had not been made aware of the proceedings, the Athlete can of course apply to have the award set aside and the matter re-considered. 16. On 20 May 2014, the CAS Court Office confirmed with the Parties that the Panel had decided to issue an award in this matter based solely on the parties’ submissions, without holding a hearing, in accordance with Article R57 of the Code. 17. On 28 May 2014, the CAS Court Office sent the Parties an Order of Procedure. Such Order of Procedure was signed and returned by the Second Respondent on 30 May 2014 and the Appellant on 5 June 2014. The Athlete never signed or returned the Order of Procedure. III. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL AND JURISDICTION 18. The version of the ADP in force at the time of this appeal is the September 2012 version (the “2012 ADP”). The version of the ADP in force at the time of the taking of the sample and the hearing before the DHP was the 2009 version (“2009 ADP”).